2008.
4. The Registry acknowledged receipt of the application, and notified the Applicant by letter dated 2nd
January 2009, that all communications meant for the Court must be addressed directly to it, at its Seat in
Arusha, Tanzania.
5. In accordance with Rule 34 (6) of the Rules, the Registry served a copy of the application on Senegal by
registered post on 5th January 2009; also in accordance with Rule 35 (4) (a) of the Rules, the Registry
invited Senegal to communicate to it, within 30 days, the names and addresses of its representatives.
6. Pursuant to Rule 35 (3) of the Rules, the Registry also informed the Chairperson of the African Union
Commission about the application by letter of that same date.
7. The Applicant informed the Registry, by letter dated 30th January 2009 received at the Registry on 5th
February 2009, that he would represent himself in the matter that he had brought before the Court.
8. Senegal acknowledged receipt of the application and transmitted to the Court, the names of its
representatives mandated to represent it before the Court, by letter of 10th February 2009 received by the
Registry on the same day, by fax.
9. By another faxed letter dated 17th February 2009 received in the Registry on the same day, Senegal
requested the Court to extend the time limit "to enable it to better prepare a reply to the application".
10. By an order dated 6th March 2009, the Court granted the request of Senegal and extended, up to 14th
April 2009, the period within which to submit its reply to the application.
11. A copy of the order was served on the Applicant, and on Senegal, by facsimile transmission dated 7th
March 2009.
12. Senegal submitted its statement of defence within the time limit indicated in the aforesaid order, in
which it raised preliminary objections regarding the jurisdiction of the Court and admissibility of the
application, and also addressed substantive issues.
13. The Registry served on the Applicant, under covering letter of 14th April 2009, a copy of the statement
of defence by Senegal.
14. The Applicant having failed to respond to the said statement, the Registry by another letter dated 19th
June 2009, notified the Applicant that if he failed to respond within 30 days, the Court would assume that
he did not want to present any submission in reply to the statement of defence, in accordance with Rule 52
(5) of the Rules.
15. On 29th July 2009, the Applicant acknowledged receipt of the statement of defence and submitted that:
"the afore-mentioned reply did not introduce any new element likely to significantly modify the views I
expressed in my initial application. I therefore maintain the said views in their entirety, and resubmit myself
to the authority of the Court."
16. In view of the facts, the Court did not deem it necessary to hold a public hearing and, consequently,
decided to close the case for deliberation.
17. In his application, the Applicant averred, among other things, that "the Republic and State of Senegal
and the Republic and State of Chad, members of the African Union, are parties to the Protocol [establishing
the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights] and have, respectively, made the declaration prescribed
in Article 34 (6) accepting the competence of the Court to receive applications submitted by individuals".
18. With regard to the facts, the Applicant submitted that Hissein Habré, former President of Chad, is a
political refugee in Senegal since December 1990, and that in 2000, he was suspected of complicity in
crimes against humanity, war crimes and acts of torture in the exercise of his duties as Head of State, an
allegation based on the complaints by the presumed victims of Chadian origin.
19. The Applicant further averred that, by decision of July 2006, the African Union had mandated Senegal
to "consider all aspects and implications of the Hissein Habré case and take all appropriate steps to find a
solution; or that failing, come up with an African option to the problem posed by the criminal prosecution of
the former Head of State of Chad, Mr. Hissein Habré..."
20. He also submitted that, on 23rd July 2008, the two chambers of the Parliament of Senegal adopted a
law amending the Constitution and "authorizing retroactive application of its criminal laws, with a view to
trying exclusively and solely Mr. Hissein Habré".
21. He alleged that by so doing, Senegal violated the "sacrosanct principle of non-retroactivity of criminal
law, a principle enshrined not only in the Senegalese Constitution but also in Article 7 (2) of the African
Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights" to which Senegal is a party.
22. According to the Applicant, the action of Senegal also portrayed that country's intention "to use in
abusive manner, for political and pecuniary ends, the mandate conferred on it by the African Union in July
2006". Further, according to the Applicant, in opting for a judicial solution rather than an African solution
2